Search results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 59 items for :

  • "Turkestan" x
  • Refine by access: All content x
Clear All
How Russian offi cials viewed and represented the participation of the local population in the 1916 revolt
Oybek Mahmudov

4 The “virtual reality” of colonial Turkestan: how Russian officials viewed and represented the participation of the local population in the 1916 revolt Oybek Mahmudov Introduction After establishing its rule in Central Asia, the Russian Empire created a complex bureaucratic administration to govern the conquered Turkestan krai. Most of the colonial officials were either barely or entirely unknown in wider colonial circles and Russian society. However, they included genuine “Turkestan experts”, some of whom became “public” experts (among others, V.  N. Nalivkin

in The Central Asian Revolt of 1916
Tatiana Kotiukova

2 The exemption of peoples of Turkestan from universal military service as an antecedent to the 1916 revolt Tatiana Kotiukova In lieu of an introduction As a researcher I have long been preoccupied with the subject of “military service for the native population of Russian Turkestan”. After a year working in the Russian State Military History Archive, in 2010 I wrote a short article, which I  submitted for publication to the aptly-named Military History Journal (Voenno-​Istoricheskii Zhurnal). The editor felt that the title of my article was terribly dull

in The Central Asian Revolt of 1916
A collapsing empire in the age of war and revolution

The 1916 revolt was a key event in the history of Central Asia, and of the Russian Empire in the First World War. This volume is the first comprehensive reassessment of its causes, course and consequences in English for over sixty years. It draws together a new generation of leading historians from North America, Japan, Europe, Russia and Central Asia, working with Russian archival sources, oral narratives, poetry and song in Kazakh and Kyrgyz. These illuminate in unprecedented detail the origins and causes of the revolt, and the immense human suffering which it entailed. They also situate the revolt in a global perspective as part of a chain of rebellions and disturbances that shook the world’s empires, as they crumbled under the pressures of total war.

Alexei Kuropatkin, the Central Asian Revolt, and the long shadow of conquest
Ian Campbell

-​Japanese War and commanded the northern front of tsarist dispositions during World War I.  It was from this last posting, in the summer of 1916, that he was reassigned to the theatre where he had first made his name. Appointed Governor-​ General of Turkestan, he was given the special task of putting down the 191 192     The Central Asian Revolt of 1916 wide-​ranging local revolt against labour requisitioning for the tsarist army that year. He pursued this goal with a vigour that suggested his qualms about violence were long in the past: the actions of his punitive forces

in The Central Asian Revolt of 1916
Economic background and political rationales
Akmal Bazarbaev and Cloé Drieu

areas of Turkestan were concerned.5 There were no accurate estimates of the casualties and losses, and we can only rely on the figure given by Mirzo Quqonboy Abdukholiqzoda Samarqandiy, according to what people said 71 72     The Central Asian Revolt of 1916 at the time. He wrote that from 15,000 to 20,000 natives died in the district of Jizzakh alone,6 against eighty-​three persons among the official local and Russian administration, in addition to the seventy Russian women and children taken prisoner.7 These figures would correspond at a maximum to 10 per cent of

in The Central Asian Revolt of 1916
Abstract only
The 1916 Central Asian uprising in the context of wars and revolutions (1914–1923)
Niccolò Pianciola

. What can explain this variation? Within broader and longer conflicts, short-​lived episodes of extreme violence could be limited to relatively small territories. This was the case with Przheval’sk district, an area of tsarist Turkestan bordering Xinjiang, where violence against the Slavic settlers during the 1916 uprising was by far the harshest. How to make sense of the temporally and spatially circumscribed “peaks” of violence? In order to provide convincing answers, our analysis needs to be conducted at different scales. On the one hand, we must be attentive to

in The Central Asian Revolt of 1916
Alexander Morrison

, which suggests that their extermination or permanent exclusion was not the goal. I also suggest that the continued violence of the period after the October Revolution, while ostensibly driven by revolutionary politics, was in fact a continuation of the by then well-​established pattern of retribution by European settlers  –​soldiers and vigilantes  –​ against the “native” population. “Where Russian blood was shed” In September 1916 the newly appointed Turkestan Governor-​General Alexei Nikolaevich Kuropatkin (1848–​1924) issued a notorious order that all land “where

in The Central Asian Revolt of 1916
The revolt as an interface of the Russian colonial crisis and the World War
Tomohiko Uyama

riots was the misunderstood order to call the natives to work in the rear of the army.4 A similar view, although from the position of blaming the tsarist Government, was taken by one of the first Soviet researchers of the revolt of 1916, the Kazakh communist Turar Rysqulov. He wrote: The mobilization of native workers for the rear work served only as a trigger for the revolt of the natives of Turkestan in 1916, and not its main cause. The most important reasons, … were precisely those deep economic and political contradictions that were created as a result of the

in The Central Asian Revolt of 1916
Aminat Chokobaeva, Cloé Drieu, and Alexander Morrison

Turkestan from the seventeenth to the twentieth century”.2 Despite this, the 1916 revolt remains little-​known and understudied in Anglophone and Francophone scholarship. While there is a rich legacy of Soviet-​era publications on the revolt in Russian, these usually bear the strong ideological imprint of the period when they were produced. The post-​Soviet period has seen a flowering of new scholarship from Central Asia itself, some of it in Central Asian languages. While much of this continues to use paradigms and terminology inherited from the Soviet period, and

in The Central Asian Revolt of 1916
Author: Sean R. Roberts

This book explores the reasons and justifications for the Chinese state’s campaign to erase Uyghur identity, focusing, in particular, on how China’s manipulation of the US-led Global War on Terror (GWOT) has facilitated this cultural genocide. It is the first book to address this issue in depth, and serves as an important rebuttal to Chinese state claims that this campaign is a benign effort to combat an existential extremist threat. While the book suggests that the motivation for this state-led campaign is primarily China’s gradual settler colonization of the Uyghur homeland, the text focuses on the narrative of the Uyghur terrorist threat that has provided international cover and justification for the campaign and has shaped its ‘biopolitical’ nature. It describes how the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was able to successfully implicate Uyghurs in GWOT and, despite a lack of evidence, brand them internationally as a serious terrorist threat within the first year of the war. In recounting these developments, the book offers a critique of existing literature on the Uyghur terrorist threat and questions the extent of this threat to the PRC. Finding no evidence for the existence of such a threat when the Chinese state first declared its existence in 2001, the book argues that a nominal Uyghur militant threat only emerged after over a decade of PRC suppression of Uyghur dissent in the name of counterterrorism, facilitating a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ that has served to justify further state repression and ultimately cultural genocide.